Julio López
está desaparecido
hace 6402 días
versión para imprimir - envía este articulo por e-mail

Haiti: Batay Ouvriye's Smoking Gun: The $100,000 NED grant
Por Haiti Action - Sunday, Jan. 08, 2006 at 8:18 PM

Recently declassified National Endowment for Democracy (NED) documents reveal that a "leftist" workers' organization, Batay Ouvriye (BO), which promoted and called for the overthrow of the constitutionally elected government of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, was the targeted beneficiary of a US $99,965 NED grant routed through the AFL-CIO's American Center for International Solidarity (ACILS). Listed in NED's "Summary of Projects Approved in FY 2005" for Haiti, the grant states, "ACILS will work with the May 1st Union Federation- Batay Ouvriye [ESPM-BO] to train workers to organize and educate fellow workers."

Batay Ouvriye's Smoking Gun:

The $100,000 NED grant



THIS WEEK IN HAITI
January 4 - 10, 2006 Vol. 23, No. 43
by Jeb Sprague

(Haïti Progres) Both before and after the Feb. 29, 2004 coup d'État in Haiti, Washington infiltrated "democracy promotion" programs (also known as "democracy enhancement") into almost every sector of Haitian civil society: political parties, media, human rights groups, student groups, vote monitoring organizations, business associations, and labor organizations.

Recently declassified National Endowment for Democracy (NED) documents reveal that a "leftist" workers' organization, Batay Ouvriye (BO), which promoted and called for the overthrow of the constitutionally elected government of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, was the targeted beneficiary of a US $99,965 NED grant routed through the AFL-CIO's American Center for International Solidarity (ACILS). Listed in NED's "Summary of Projects Approved in FY 2005" for Haiti, the grant states, "ACILS will work with the May 1st Union Federation- Batay Ouvriye [ESPM-BO] to train workers to organize and educate fellow workers."

The NED, which is funded through the U.S. State Department, provided the grant to ACILS, also known as the Solidarity Center. The grant money is then to be used by the Solidarity Center to fund and aid Batay Ouvriye's labor organizing activities for 2005-2006.

Statements made by both Batay Ouvriye and Solidarity Center officials suggest that there is further funding of the former by the latter. In a recent telephone interview with Canadian freelance journalist Anthony Fenton, a Batay Ouvriye leader Paul Philomé admitted that his organization had received US $20,000 from the Solidarity Center. A Solidarity Center official also recently said at a Dec. 22 public meeting in San Francisco that ACILS provided approximately US $13,000 to the Batay Ouvriye this past year. This funding appears to be in addition to the NED grant, since Solidarity Center officials have stated that the NED grant will not be spent until 2006.

Batay Ouvriye has been waging a successful campaign to gain high-level support from labor federations like the AFL-CIO, which shuns trade unionists who supported Haiti's constitutional democracy and are today arrested, persecuted, and harassed. The NED grant explains that NGOs and trade unions from the U.S. and Canada will meet with Batay Ouvriye to discuss working conditions in Haiti.

The Solidarity Center-administered NED support for Batay Ouvriye fits neatly into the U.S. State Department's "democracy promotion" strategy of undermining and destabilizing Haitian self-determination. Instead of supporting unions which did not call for the overthrow of the elected government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the AFL-CIO, along with mainstream international labor centers, such as the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and its Latin American regional affiliate the Organización Regional Interamericana de Trabajadores (ORIT), has sought to strengthen marginal groups like Batay Ouvriye and the Coordination Syndicale HaVtienne (CSH), which taxed the Aristide government as "anti-worker" and "criminal."

Workers affiliated with public sector unions, often seen as supporters of the elected government, have been fired and persecuted by the thousands. In a recent radio interview, Isabel Macdonald, a Canadian journalist conducting interviews in Port-au-Prince, explained that between 2,000 and 3,000 unionized workers of the state phone company TELECO have been laid off since the 2004 coup, with many of those fired placed arbitrarily on the Haitian National Police's "Wanted" lists (Listen to the Interview with Isabel Macdonald at http://www.wakeupwithcoop.org).

When questioned why the AFL-CIO was not supporting or funding unions whose membership supported the overthrown government, a high level Solidarity Center official, in June 2005, referred to pro-Lavalas trade unionists as "revolutionary ideologues."

Batay Ouvriye, like other organizations heavily dependent on foreign "democracy promotion" funding, has failed to stand up and organize against the massacres being carried out by the Haitian National Police and the United Nations MINUSTAH force. The Pacifica Radio network's Flashpoints News correspondent Kevin Pina writes: "Is it not patently obvious that, for Batay [Ouvriye] and their supporters, the killing, jailing, and forced exile of thousands since Feb. 29, 2004 are not acknowledged nor condemned by them? Can their politics be so sectarian and insular as to pretend none of this ever happened?... Members of Batay [Ouvriye] are not under fire in their communities nor the objects of this campaign of repression for the simple reason that they are not seen as a threat by the US-installed government."

Pina goes on to write: "We can get trapped into a false dialogue with pretty words like bourgeois, proletariat and vanguard, but it will never excuse their silence in the wake of this human tragedy."

Pierre Labossiere of the Haiti Action Committee sees the U.S. government grants to Batay Ouvriye as a "pay-off for their voicing no opposition to the 2004 coup."

Channeling "democracy promotion" funds through labor unions is just one of the ways that the U.S. government has sought to subvert popular democracy in Haiti. "Democracy promotion" has facilitated, what William Robinson, the author of Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US intervention, and Hegemony, calls a "consensual mechanism of transnational social control," by which a small minority elite can manipulate civil society and government. Through co-opting labor unions, human rights groups and political organizations, "democracy promotion" casts a wide net of social and political influence.

Recently the Washington, D.C.-based think-tank, the Haiti Democracy Project, financed in large part by members of Group 184 and board-membered by ex-State Department officials, put up a link on its website to Batay Ouvriye's "grassroots" support group.

Batay Ouvriye and its supporters have continually denied that the organization has received large-scale funding from the U.S. government via the Solidarity Center. Prior to the opening session of the International Tribunal on Haiti on Sep. 23, 2005 in Washington, DC (see HaVti ProgrPs, Vol. 23, No. 37, 11/23/2005), Batay Ouvriye's relationship with the Solidarity Center was not public knowledge. Since then, the organization has only admitted that it received from the Solidarity Center US $3,500. Batay Ouvriye and its supporters have sought to minimize the importance of the grant, saying it was a small sum of money. That argument will not be possible following these latest revelations.

Here is a summary of some of the defenses that Batay Ouvriye and its supporters have offered to revelations about its State Department funding:

On December 9, 2005, Mario Pierre, a representative of the Batay Ouvriye in New York City, claimed his organization received only "$3,500 from the Solidarity Center," while charging that those individuals and organizations criticizing his organization for accepting U.S. State Department funding were "doing the work of the CIA."

On November 25, 2005, Charles Arthur, the head organizer of the Haiti Support Group in England, wrote, "I think that the fact that Batay Ouvriye received US$3,500 from the Solidarity Center to help the 350 workers.should not distract anyone from appreciating the organization's fantastic work."

On November 28, 2005, Batay Ouvriye supporter Daniel Simidor wrote: "All [this author] can 'prove' is that the workers' organization accepted a $3,500 contribution to their strike fund from the AFL-CIO Solidarity Center in Haiti. Sprague's contention that Batay Ouvriye accepted 'monetary aid and oversight' from the US government is based not on facts."

On November 29, 2005, Batay Ouvriye supporter Mitchell Cohen of the Brooklyn Greens wrote: "Organizations and individuals who are spreading this lie need to retract it immediately and apologize for their reckless, sectarian behavior. If it turns out that you actually document that a particular group, in this case Batay Ouvriye, has received funds from the CIA or State Department, then I'll listen..Wow, what a smoking gun! (I say sarcastically)."

In late November, 2005, a supporter of Batay Ouvriye, Cort Greene, posted on the internet: "Just from looking at documents provided by J. Sprague and others, I have not seen any proof that Batay Ouvriye is a creation or in the service of U.S. imperialism."

On December 14, 2005, Yanick Etienne, a Batay Ouvriye leader, speaking at a New York City gathering, in regards to the criticism leveled against her organization, failed to mention the NED's $100,000 grant via the AFL-CIO's Solidarity Center.

In December 2005, the Solidarity Center updated its website on Haiti (see http://www.solidaritycenter.org/content.asp?contentid=531). "With funds provided by the AFL-CIO, the Solidarity Center immediately forwarded $3,500 to Ouanaminthe, where ESPM-BO and the [subsidiary union] SOKOWA Executive Board distributed these funds," the site reports, but once again it does not reveal the much larger funding of Batay Ouvriye.

The Solidarity Center continues to refuse to open its books to show its full funding relationship with Batay Ouvriye. In September 2005, Samantha Tate, a Senior Program Officer for the Americas at the Solidarity Center, contacted my academic department chair at California State University of Long Beach, attempting to isolate and discredit this research.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Jeb Sprague is a researcher, freelance journalist, and a graduate student at California State University of Long Beach. To read more on the AFL-CIO's support for anti-democracy labor in Haiti, see his article Supporting a Leftist Opposition to Lavalas: The AFL-CIO's Solidarity Center and Batay Ouvriye both in Haïti Progrés (see Vol. 23, No. 37, 11/23/2005) and Monthly Review (mrzine.monthlyreview.org/sprague211105.html) Contact him at Jebsprague[nospam]@mac.com or visit his blog at http://www.freehaiti.net.

THIS WEEK IN HAITI * January 4 - 10, 2006 Vol. 23, No. 43. Copyrighted Haïti Progres, Inc. REPRINTS ENCOURAGED. Please credit Haiti Progres.

http://www.haitiaction.net/News/JS/1_6_6.html

agrega un comentario


On Sprague’s Alleged “Smoking Gun”
Por Solidarity Batay Ouvriye - Sunday, Jan. 15, 2006 at 10:12 PM

On Sprague’s Alleged “Smoking Gun”


As some may know, our Batay Ouvriye workers’ movement has recently been under the attacks of a questionable political current based in the United States. This current has published several articles, individually intervened on the internet, hosted presentations and debates, and held various other activities questioning our sources of funding.


According to the latest article published by Sprague “Batay Ouvriye’s Smoking Gun” (Haiti-Progrès, Jan. 4 - 10, 2006):


“Instead of supporting unions which did not call for the overthrow of the elected government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the AFL-CIO, along with mainstream international labor centers… has sought to strengthen marginal groups like Batay Ouvriye…”.


Here, at long last, we have reached the bottom of this current’s reasoning. According to it, these funds, regularly funneled to Haiti through the NED-ACILS relationship ($250,000 in 1997, for example – whose utilization, as all others, except perhaps for those of 2005, thanks to the ‘researcher’ -, we are completely ignorant of) should have been allocated elsewhere.


But where?


For us, of Batay Ouvriye, who have never, ever, compromised our line of complete working class independence by entering into cross-class coalitions such as the 184 group, the claim is revealing because actually: every single major Haitian union federation, regardless of their internal divisions, EXCEPT US, participated in this reactionary alliance’s notorious Dec. 26, 2002 statement in favor of “collective measures to redress the national boat” which initiated the movement to overthrow Aristide’s regime (http://tinyurl.com/8ajkq).


Here is the full list of 184-affiliated Haitian unions: http://tinyurl.com/doa8s - (although many may actually be NGO’s:



Acronym Full Name in French or Creole English Translation


CATH Centrale Autonome des Travailleurs Haïtiens Autonomous Central of Haitian Workers


CFOH Confédération des Forces Ouvrières Haïtiennes Confederation of Haitian Working Forces


CGT Centrale Générale des Travailleurs Workers General Central


CISN Confédération Indépendante des Syndicats Nationaux Independent Confederation of National Unions


COH Congrès des Ouvriers d’Haïti Haitian Workers Congress


CONITH Confédération Indépendante des Travailleurs Haïtiens Independent Confederation of Haitian Workers


CSH Coordination Syndicale Haïtienne Haitian Union Coordination


CTH Confédération des Travailleurs Haïtiens Confederation of Haitian Workers


FETRAGA Fédération des Travailleurs de la Grand’Anse Grand’Anse Workers Federation


FETRAGOM Fédération des Travailleurs Agricoles de Gros-Morne Federation of Agricultural Workers of Gros-Morne


FETRASMA Fédération des Travailleurs Agricoles de Saint-Michel de l’Atalaye Federation of Agricultural Workers of Saint-Michel de l’Atalaye


FNTS Fédération Nationale des Travailleurs Syndiqués National Federation of Unionized Workers


FOS Fédération des Ouvriers Syndiqués Federation of Unionized Workers


FTN Fédération des Travailleurs du Nord Federation of Northern Workers


KOMOKA Kombit Motosiklis ak Kondiktè d’Ayiti Haiti Assembly of Motorcyclists and Drivers


KOTA Konfederasyon Ouvrye Travayè Ayisyen Haitian Workers Confederation


MNTH Mouvement National des Travailleurs Haïtiens National Movement of Haitian Workers


MOPPA Mouvman Peyizan Patriyot Ayisyen Haitian Patriotic Peasants Movement


MOVICIH Mouvement Inter-Syndical Indépendante d’Haïti Haitian Independent Inter-Union Movement


MTCH Mouvement des Travailleurs du Cap-Haïtien Cap-Haïtien Workers Movement


OGETNO Organisation Générale des Travailleurs du Nord-Ouest General Workers Organization of the Northwest


OGITH Organisation Générale Indépendante des Travailleurs Haïtiens Independent Organization of Haitian Workers


OTRA Organisation des Travailleurs pour l’Avancement de l’Anse-à-Foleur Workers Organization for the Advancement of l’Anse-à-Foleur


RENAFAM Réseau National des Femmes National Women's Network


SCCF Syndicat des Chauffeurs Coopérants Fédérés Federated Cooperative Drivers Union


SCCF Syndicat des Chauffeurs et Coopérants et Fédérés Union of Cooperative and Federated Drivers


SCPTEP Syndicat des Chauffeurs et Propriétaires de Transport d’Eau Potable Union of Owners and Drivers of Drinking Water Transport


SOST SOS Transport


UTDL Union des Travailleurs du District de Limbé Workers Union of Limbé District



All the more grotesque is that the Haiti Progrès’ propelled or favored CGT union federation also participated in this tragic farce. The also favorably presented CTH is Christian-Democrat and deeply involved in food distribution..


We so far refused to attain this level of argumentation in order to avoid falling into the Sprague-Haiti Progres current’s favorite practice of finger-pointing. Singly confronted with this harrowing and unending defamation, however, we simply must put forward what to us has always appeared evident: Batay Ouvriye has obtained, and will continue to obtain support for the manifest reason of its being the only present active union movement in the field. Period.


Bottom Line

For us, these are sums recuperated. We don’t care how many figures are involved (agreeing, finally, in this with Kim Ives in his note to Mitchel Cohen on the Haiti Corbett list: “The point here is NOT the amount of money given”), how much may come to exist and/or how long they may last. We are determined to continue receiving all funds available for working class organization. In fact, the present debate has reinforced us in this resolve. One of our spokespersons, Paul, recently discussed the issue with the American “free-lance journalist” Anthony Fenton ***. To Fenton’s surprise, Paul openly stated that yes, firmly armed with our line of working class independence, we are prepared to accept any amount, even if it were a million dollars (!) coming from wherever it may come. (The million dollar figure was “erroneously” given to Fenton by the NED, it seems, instead of the $100,000 “targeted beneficiary” sum).This stand has been unanimously approved at every level of our organization.


Batay Ouvriye has never, nor intends to appeal to the NED, the US State Department or USAID and has NO relation with any of these bodies. In this sense, Sprague’s illustrated comment that our organization is “funded by the U.S. Department of State, USAID, and the Solidarity Center” is purposely misleading and deeply dishonest. It’s unfortunate (but telling) that we haven’t had access to any of these NED “recently declassified” documents, which we haven’t able to find on the internet either. So we aren’t even notified. But as we said in our statement on solidarity, where supporters obtain their funds is their problem, not ours. In our line of working class independence, we deal directly with those we are directly in contact with, such as the Solidarity Center whose line and practices we have unequivocally confronted in all situations.


And just as Mario of the Batay Ouvriye Solidarity Network pointed out, it’s up to providers to decide when and if they’re fed up with us. They aren’t obtaining any information from us, nor collaboration. We continue our practices in unswerving conformity with our line, nationally and internationally. We certainly won’t alter an inch from this line (and duty) due to the pressure of North-American petty bourgeois knee-jerk reactions either.


Accounts

We, at Batay Ouvriye, resent being put on the line for accounts that our challengers don’t publicly divulge themselves - what sort of arrogance does this reflect, especially in terms of inversing North-South relations?!! But in the end, if this may help to settle the qualms of upset supporters, and also perhaps (though we doubt it) quiet the dogs barking up the wrong tree, we comply. First: it appears Haiti’s Batay Ouvriye union may be a “targeted beneficiary” for $100,000 this year, through the Solidarity Center which solicited the NED. In this bulk amount, $20,000 (of which $13,000 remain to be disbursed – there is no $13,000 or $20,000 “further funding”) have been allotted for a Ouanaminthe Workers’ Center. Presently in discussion is a possible additional $50,000 we’ve been offered for a potential free trade zone practice in Port-au-Prince; this amount has not yet been signed and we haven’t received a cent of it. The Ouanaminthe funds being strictly destined to this locality and the procedures bureaucratic, we hope such central funds may at least help cover Port-au-Prince long outstanding debts and phone bills (our phone line being presently cut off) while also providing for meeting spaces, perhaps a fax, the internet only occasionally paid and so on… but especially worker militant stipends. The free trade zone practice is not one of Ouanaminthe but rather one of national dimension, demanding much coordination and travel. Workers living on a day-to-day basis have to leave money at home for their families to subsist.


Since this is the first time we’re in such a position, to claim we’re “heavily dependent on “foreign ‘democracy promotion’” is just ludicrous. And the affirmation that we we’ve been recently linked, because of this, on the reactionary “Haiti Democracy Project” website, is a patent lie that can be proved a simple link click – the site merely references an article on this debate on Indymedia, amongst numerous others articles they chose to blog that week such as Corporate Watch’s Lucy Komisar article on the Aristide Telecom lawsuits!





On being deaf, dumb and blind to obvious internal contradictions

Perhaps the obtuseness evident here reflects the noticeable incapacity of some North-American progressive organizations, as yet, to live up to their immense challenge, that of nationally and internationally proposing genuine alternatives to the Republican / Democrat false dichotomy, the AFL-CIO / Change to Win impasse and others... Such Manichaeism, insensible to manifest contradictions in historical and political development, appears to be part and parcel of other strategic and tactical limitations. The frequently dismally low level of this debate on the San Francisco Bay Area Indymedia internet commentary section, for example, reveals a high degree of team back-patting and regurgitation conducive to a rather gloomy outlook on the “left”’s advancement in North America. It’s clearly much less difficult to scapegoat others than to lucidly examine and address the visibly progressing contradictions of limited social movements that even we may have participated in.


Defending Aristide

The messiah Aristide’s defense consequently ends up as this supposed left’s last holding rampart concerning Haitian progressive politics. “Throngs” demonstrated for Aristide – but it is indifferent to our detractors whether these individuals were workers, masses, demonstrating in their own interests or recruited lumpen proletarians, often defending quite opposite interests. In fact, the very debate appears dull for them.


Although we’ve already said we’re determined not to be prey to the provocateurs’ lure and remain resolute in avoiding sterile debates where we repeat key positions that seem to fall on deaf ears, we repeat nevertheless that: for us, the issue of clearly recognizing populist opportunists sectors reconstructing the bureaucratic bourgeoisie as a reactionary fraction of the Haitian bourgeoisie is crucial. As we already showed, the “legitimately elected” President argument doesn’t hold with respect to the preservation of workers’ interests (as we said: what of Bush? What of Chirac?). Helping the workers and masses to quite distinctly draw the line between their real interests and those of all new bourgeois fractions which may be just as negative as the ‘traditional bourgeoisie’ with regard to their medium- and long-term interests, is vital to avoid repeating errors of the past. That the Lavalas current, alongside the bourgeois “opposition”, repeatedly called for Haiti’s occupation, that it favored the concentration of capital and the application of neo-liberal policies such as the free trade zones, that it repressed workers’ mobilizations… are all extremely important points we need to scrutinize in the interest of the workers. And our general stand on this debate guides us, as a line, in permanently exposing all the ruling classes’ various forms and disguises, in complete working class independence.


We should note that, throughout this dialogue, we haven’t received the slightest response on these reiterated points. Which proves, for us, the fact that these attacks aren’t in view of any real progressive critique and/or advancement but, rather, alternate current “bashing”. So we’re prepared to battle, just as we’ve been doing since many years, against the ruling classes.


In fact, several Haitian progressives are beginning to sincerely question the deep-lying interests of American progressives in defending such frankly exposed “Lavalas family” politics. Certainly, being mistaken by the mainstream media is understandable. But to remain entrenched in such fallacy is beyond us, leading to the question of whether the problem might not rather be related to class nature and composition.



On the presentation of facts

Several progressives have indicated reserve with respect to Batay Ouvriye’s gradual presentation of the facts and stands we’ve taken in the finances debate. Given the importance we have always given their support and the negative effects we realize this situation may have created, we considered it important for us to clarify. But we also want to point out two things that may help to explain how this situation came about. First, that this debate has gradually grown into a full-blown discussion of numerous issues, that is being followed by a good number of sincerely concerned progressives. We learned this. At first, we had no knowledge of who was participating and/or following it and in what objective. Secondly, related to this, is the fact that the debate evolved by parts. When it started out, it concerned the question of whether we had obtained funds from the AFL-CIO to participate in the Aristide regime’s “destabilization”. We demonstrated quite clearly (http://tinyurl.com/djjlb) that we hadn’t received any funds from the Solidarity Center before Aristide’s departure in February 2004 and that only several months later did this organization offer $3,500 to the Free Trade Zone striking SOCOWA workers in response to a public appeal. The debate then came to concern whether a genuine workers’ movement could accept any funds from the American government or the AFL-CIO’s Solidarity Center. We again responded to this with our “Clarification” document (http://tinyurl.com/89zpn), establishing clearly what we exactly understand to be relations of solidarity and working class independence (“On Solidarity” - http://tinyurl.com/8fgcx) and addressing numerous other points as well. At present, since the Dec. 22nd debate in San Francisco, we are solicited to open the books and state precisely what our solidarity funding is, has been and may be. Once again, we’ve fully complied, in the interest of unity and solidarity, and with respect for the struggles of the workers and popular masses in Haiti and internationally.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes:

*** Fenton revealed himself to be quite the unethical reporter, for we clearly asked him before the interview (we have the conversation taped) whether it would concern Sprague, Haiti Progres or any part of the whole financing question, since we were preparing our full statements on these questions and had already decided not to engage in bits of conversation with members of this league evidently distorting our views. He assured us that no, the content of the interview would concern the "current state of the unions..., developments within the assembly sector...., views on the role of the elite sector in shaping policy... views on the slated elections.." (etc... formulated in his previous email to us) but would have nothing to do with the debate at hand. But he then went ahead and communicated information we nevertheless agreed to discuss with him after the interview to Sprague who used it exactly in the way Fenton had agreed it wouldn’t be used! This is certainly a dishonesty as well as a dissimulation. (In passing, the other American “free-lance reporter” Kevin Pina, reporting to WBAI, had an equally unethical behavior, falsely reporting that Batay Ouvriye organized with Guy Philippe, an ex-military right wing political candidate, a recent demonstration during Dominican President Fernandez’s visit to Haiti – please see our rebuttal: http://tinyurl.com/d5elu.)


agrega un comentario